www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Ecumenical Dialogue and Faith

I respectfully disagree, and I believe the debate between St. Mark of Ephesus and John de Montenero on the filioque prove that the two sides really do not believe the same thing about the procession of the Spirit. That is, unless the Roman Church no longer believes what John de Montenero said in the conciliar debates on the issue. I suppose that that is possible.

Frankly, I have never been able to tell what, if anything, the Roman Catholic Church believes about the procession of the Holy Spirit any more. I am confused, because in this modern day they seem simultaneously to want to affirm internally what was taught at Florence, yet externally to deny it, so as to repackage the dogma in a palatable fashion for those of us in the East who hold fast to the faith of Blachernae, Gregory II of Constantinople and St. Gregory Palamas. But in the end, it seems like this process accomplishes neither of these ends (neither retaining internal consistency with the teachings of Florence, nor an outward appearance of consistency with Blachernae), but rather it only seems to yield a big doctrinal mess.

Possibly. The Vatican tends to be pretty close-to-the-vest regarding their thoughts on that. (Which is not to say that they shouldn't, I just mean that it makes it difficult to speak to that point. On the other hand some of the statements that I've heard or read from private individuals in the Catholic Church can be a little ... well, perhaps you've seen this video [youtube.com] before. )

Dear Todd,

A Byzantine Redemptorist I knew who was doing his doctorate in Toronto once did a paper where he said it is possible to go "beyond" the papal dogmas.

Thus, he posited that "infallibility" is "complete" when a pope becomes the signatory to the decrees of an Ecumenical Council (leaving aside the issue of the "14 later Latin Councils").

For primacy of jurisdiction, he said that one could simply limit its extent for other Churches (i.e. not the Roman Church) and that it could only be exercised if: 1) a church clearly broke a canon of the Ecumenical Councils; 2)the church itself called upon Rome to intervene in its internal affairs due to jurisdictional problems, heresy etc.

This was made very real to me when I once visited an Anglican parish for some refreshments during a home tour here with "she who must be obeyed" (my wife).

One of their magazines talked about the issue of heretical priests in their midst and how their bishops appeared unwilling to do anything about it. Several letters asked why the Anglican Church was not "in union with Rome yet." One person wrote "we send people to these ecumenical talks and nothing comes of it. The Bishop of Rome, were he our penultimate bishop, would have moved to clear up the mess we are currently in, since our local bishops don't have the stomach for it."

As for the Filioque, Rome need only implement the recommendations of its own theologians who participate in the Orthodox-RC ecumenical commissions. When I raised the Filioque with an EC priest and professor (who has since reposed in the Lord), he simply said to me, "Why are you even mentioning the Filioque? It is a dead issue theologically! Why don't you just read some of the reports coming out . . ."

He was always a bit emotional, you know. Well published, but emotional . . .

I doubt very much if today's ecumenical talks and POTENTIAL movements by Rome in future will be impacted by what St Mark and John said to each other at Florence in 1440 . . .

Although, you never know . . .

Also, I think you tend to be a bit more dogmatic on these things than even Rome would be.

But I esteem you so very highly, sir, despite the fact that you were an RC for so many years

Alex

I recall something I read. The author was a Catholic, but forget who. Anyhow, he mentioned a conversation he had with one of the Anglican signatories of a Catholic-Anglican agreed statement, who revealed that he had not read the document before signing it.

I think we're all in agreement about this. Even Pope Paul VI suggested that it may be necessary to "demote" (he used a more diplomatic term here, but I don't remember what it was) the councils of the Latin Church after II Nicaea, since they did not include the entire Church.

It is also noteworthy that even in the West, there exists a principle of "dogmaticity" that requires a teaching to have been accepted "semper, ubique et ab omninbus" in order to be considered dogmatic--if this were rigorously applied, it could solve a lot of problems.

As I understand it, the West considers it an open question whether the Father should be considered the "sole cause" of the Trinity, with the Son acting only "passively" in the procession of the Spirit, or whether the Father and Son act together "as a single Principle (even here, though, there is some question as to whether "principle"="cause")."

However, all this would be moot if the councils were demoted, since all parties agree that a local council cannot make pronouncements that are binding on the whole Church.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Personally, I completely agree that the Catholic Church should bring back the distinction (discarded in the mid-16th century) between Ecumenical Councils and General Councils. But my impression is that we're in a minority among Catholics.

That is just it, I do not think that everyone is in agreement. I am reminded of the another thread here at the Byzantine Forum where it was argued that it is the divisions within Eastern Orthodoxy that are slowing down (and perhaps even preventing) the restoration of communion. But which Church is really divided? It appears to me that the Roman Church (including its Eastern extensions) is the one that is really divided, because you have Catholics (and not just laymen) who hold that the papal dogmas are non-negotiable, and other Catholics who say that Rome can keep those "dogmas" but not enforce them, and still other Catholics (especially Eastern Catholics) who say that the papal dogmas are not really dogmas, and can be - for lack of a better word - dumped. So which Church is really divided and sending mixed messages? Which Church is really obstructing ecumenical dialogue? Is it any wonder that Eastern Orthodox Christians are often confused about what Rome really teaches?

Yes, I am myself confused about what Rome teaches as expressed through the way RC's live and worship. But there are many, many RC's who aren't like that and through whom Christ truly does shine forth! (You included, sir!).

With good will on both sides, I believe a union Council could take place where all the issues can be resolved and at the end of which a formal proclamation of unity can be made.

Who knows? They might even call upon you, Todd, to give a paper or two during that council!

But your RC background is reflected in your desire to see everything laid out in an orderly fashion without equivocation . . .

Alex

Active and passive spiration, which is a notion that arose among the Scholastics, does not involve the Son being a "passive" spirator of the Holy Spirit. Instead, according to St. Thomas, both the Father and the Son actively spirate the Holy Spirit, and it is the Holy Spirit Himself who is passively spirated (i.e., processed from Them as from a single cause). That is what St. Thomas means in the Summa when he speaks about four real relations in the Godhead, i.e., paternity, filiation, spiration, and procession (a.k.a., passive spiration). Passive spiration is the receptive characteristic of the Holy Spirit that distinguishes Him from the Father and the Son who actively spirate Him as from one principle and a single spiration (see Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Prima Pars, Q. 28, no. 4, and Q. 36, nos. 1, 2, and 4; see also Thomas Aquinas, Contra Errores Graecorum, chapter 10; see also A. Tanquerey, A Manual of Dogmatic Theology, 1:351; see also L. Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, pages 67-69; see also B. Lonergan, The Triune God: Systematics, pages 233-255; see also J. Wilhelm and T. Scannell, A Manual of Catholic Theology: Based on Scheeben's Dogmatik, pages 312-315).


Postscript: The words "principle" and "cause" - according to the bishops at the Council of Florence - mean the same thing.

Peter, I think you are, at heart, an ecumenical theologian!

(Are you a theologian?)

Alex

I agree. It is really only Eastern Catholics who push for this distinction. Cardinal Ratzinger rejected the notion in his response to the Melkite Holy Synod.

That is a very kind comment, but I am just a high school teacher, and no one - besides me - cares what I think about these issues. Quite honestly, my theological studies are really focused soley on trying to figure out where God is calling me to live out my Christian life. I have no desire to theologically influence anyone else.

One more time from me on this issue: In eternally begetting the Son, the Father establishes Himself as the sole source of Trinitarian Life. To say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both, as the Latins do, does not do violence to the original Creed because the Holy Spirit receives that Trinitarian Life (through spiration, if you will) eternally from the Father through the Son, and is the Spirit of Both. The Latins do not deny that the Father is the sole source of Divine, Trinitarian Life, and do NOT teach an heretical doctrine as some Orthodox accuse them of.

We're talking about Infinite, Uncreated, Eternal Being - a complete Mystery to all. Who can absorb, understand or articulate this adequately?

Can you elaborate on that?